Memory Alpha:Category suggestions
=Provisional categories= *Category:Astronomical phenomena New category. - 16:05, June 27, 2010 (UTC) *Category:Subspace phenomena New category. - 21:47, July 22, 2010 (UTC) =Suggested categories= In-universe categories Non-corporeal beings We already have a list of about 30 species. Given that we know of quite a few entities/individuals from some of these, there are probably 50-60 articles that would fit this. Two ways we could approach this: * One category that includes both individuals and the species (easier, since in some of these cases, the lines are skewed) * OR we could have separate cats for the individuals and the species. --- Jaz 08:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC) :Support first option. - 09:06, April 27, 2010 (UTC) ::Yeah, I think the first option would probably be easier to do, maybe name it "Non-corporeals" or something, although I suppose "beings" would work as well, but are they really "beings" in all instances? --Terran Officer 22:43, June 7, 2010 (UTC) Events Based on the two below, I purpose this tree under Lists: *Category:Events **Category:Expeditions (or missions) **Category:Conflicts (now under Events) *Category:Astronomy **Category:Astronomical objects **Category:Astronomical phenomena I know Cid already said he didn't like the phenomena name, but from what I can tell, this would only cover Siren calls, the Nexus, and maybe the Fornax Disaster, all of which were naturally occurring as far as we know, and the disaster could just be placed under Events if it's a problem. - 09:06, April 27, 2010 (UTC) :"Siren calls" and "Nexus" do in fact sound as if a "Phenomena" category might be appropriate for them - but in that case, I don't see how "Phenomena" could itself be categorized as "Event". "Fornax Disaster" is a disaster is an event, and not a phenomenon. However, the generic Supernova could be categorized as a phenomenon - in addition to or perhaps even instead of as an "astronomical object". In any case, Category:Astronomical objects should be checked for potential overlap or recategorization, and perhaps a suggestion be made how the new "phenomenon" category might relate to that objects category (if it needs to relate at all). :Regarding "Events" and subcats "Expeditions" and "Conflicts" - I'm no longer totally opposed to that, but at the same time, the categorization of expeditions as events somehow doesn't quite "feel" right. Sorry, can't express it any better at the moment. Are there any alternate suggestions regarding those? -- Cid Highwind 15:51, May 9, 2010 (UTC) Since "Astronomical objects" says it's for "all classifications of astronomical objects and phenomena", Phenomena could sub under it with some reshuffling of the pages already in AO. As for Events and Expeditions, I would agree that the names aren't perfect, but they get the job done, and I'm out of ideas on that front. - 23:16, May 9, 2010 (UTC) :In which case, the new category should perhaps at least be called "Astronomical phenomena", to make sure that no "other" phenomenon ends up in an astronomy subcat. Also - is every phenomenon really an "object"? The above-mentioned siren calls seem to not be. -- Cid Highwind 10:16, May 10, 2010 (UTC) Moving AP up to the same level as AO under Astronomy while moving any phenomena out of the objects cat should fix that. A good number of the pages in Astronomy could potentially end up in a AP category. - 10:53, May 10, 2010 (UTC) Mission and expeditions A category to cover all expeditions and missions within the Federation as well as the ones from other species, such as Arias Expedition, Away mission, Omega training mission, Space shuttle missions, and Vulcanian expedition. – Tom 11:18, September 19, 2009 (UTC) :Not a fan of the name, but support the idea. - 13:33, September 21, 2009 (UTC) ::Support. I would suggest simply "Events" as a name. As an aside, I seem to remember this or something similar being discussed before, and it didn't seem to gain traction. --31dot 20:57, September 21, 2009 (UTC) :This idea seems like it could also cover the pages listed for the proposed category below, if it was simply "Events". - 16:46, January 27, 2010 (UTC) :::I don't think an expedition can be subsumed under an "Event" category - or if it can, then this category title is so generic that it won't really be useful. I'm not opposed to the original suggestion, if a good title can be found, but I think "Event" isn't it. -- Cid Highwind 18:28, January 27, 2010 (UTC) ::Expeditions could be a subcat of Events.--31dot 22:30, January 27, 2010 (UTC) ::::"Expeditions and Missions" seems to be a better name, because that would somewhat fit with the terminology used within the franchise, and "events" make me think of things more like a star going supernova or some sort of festival/fair, etc...--Terran Officer 22:49, June 7, 2010 (UTC) Interstellar incidents A category which could feature all interstellar events, including the wars but also Fornax Disaster or maybe the nexus, too. – Tom 11:18, September 19, 2009 (UTC) :Since all the wars are already, or should be, under Category:Conflicts, I don't see the need for another category for them as well, though something like Category:Interstellar phenomena could cover the other two. - 13:31, September 21, 2009 (UTC) ::"Phenomena" is typically used to describe naturally occurring things - not "artificial" ones like wars or disasters. Oppose that suggested title. "Incident" isn't much different from "Event" (see suggestion above), and as such, probably to generic to be anything but a super-category for others. -- Cid Highwind 18:31, January 27, 2010 (UTC) :I would ask that if it allows us to add these pages, would creating a "super-category" really be a bad thing? - 01:34, January 28, 2010 (UTC) ::We'd still need a "sub-category" to actually place articles in - otherwise, not necessarily, no. -- Cid Highwind 17:27, January 28, 2010 (UTC) :::I agree with the idea behind it, but it seems to be that "Conflicts" sounds more like the 'parent' category then anything, at least as far as the kind of things as described in the examples go. Though, I must admit... I am a bit of at a lost at what to suggest for terms, because I can agree that not everything would be an 'incident' and 'event' just seems so... off. The race Tom Paris and B'Elanna Torres participated in (I forget the exact name, the episode where they wore those flight suits) would be an 'event' but the stand off between seems more like a conflict, or if not that then...well I don't know, an incident of some sort, I guess or something else... damn, this is hard.--Terran Officer 22:55, June 7, 2010 (UTC) Warp technologies and offshoots Right now, everything "warp" related is either shoved into Category:Propulsion technology or Category:Physics. Randomly and haphazardly no less. It would seem to me to make some sense to try to collect these things into a single category that could (possibly) be a subcategory of each of those aforementioned beasts. I'm not convinced on a name yet, but "Warp" would fit best with the currently existing Category:Subspace. -- sulfur 15:51, March 30, 2010 (UTC) :SUPPORT creation of sub-category for Warp technologies, and submit that the category be entitled, "Warp technology"--Obey the Fist!! 16:00, March 30, 2010 (UTC) ::Support, with either name. - 16:07, March 30, 2010 (UTC) I lean toward just "Warp" (partly so that it matches "Subspace") mostly because it is intended to cover all things warp related, not just the technology specifically. -- sulfur 16:09, March 30, 2010 (UTC) :That's fair. Becuase, if you went with my initial suggestion, we'd have to have Warp tech, Warp theory, Warp uses and on and on. I think "Warp" would be the best way to go.--Obey the Fist!! 16:33, March 30, 2010 (UTC) Production POV categories Award categories We have categroies for Category:Academy Award winners and Category:Academy Award nominees, Category:Emmy Award winners and Category:Emmy Award nominees, and Category:Saturn Award winners and Category:Saturn Award nominees. To complete the list we also should have Category:Screen Actors Guild Award winners and Category:Taurus World Stunt Award nominees. Maybe I am missing one more, see this list. – Tom 06:52, May 17, 2010 (UTC) :Support. - 06:09, June 2, 2010 (UTC) Video Games performers/ Video Games production staff We have articles (individual articles) for almost all of the comic book and novel writers and artist, having the category Category:Star Trek publication artists. The only orphan here on MA are the video games. Many actors appeared in both, one of the video games and one of the series/films. But there are also several performers and people behind them who worked only on the video games and we currently list them here. They should also have their own articles. – Tom 06:52, May 17, 2010 (UTC) :Support - 06:09, June 2, 2010 (UTC) Production company sub-categories I see that Category:Production companies contains both companies which actually produced Star Trek series and/or films (such as Desilu, Viacom and so forth) and companies which were sub-contracted for things like visual effects and makeup (such as Burman Studio, Gregory Jein, Inc., Digital Domain and so forth). Would it make sense to have subcategories for the latter, perhaps along these lines: *Category:Production companies (parent category) **Category:Visual effects production companies **Category:Makeup effects studios **Category:Post-production companies **Category:Production support companies (for caterers, trailer companies, etc. — e.g. Bobby Weisman Caterers, Inc., Movie Movers, and so forth) We might also consider further subdivisions of the visual effects production companies category, perhaps into sub-sub-categories like Category:Model-making companies, Category:Matte painting companies, and Category:Computer-generated effects companies; however, this might be too complicated, as some companies (such as ILM) would fit into more than one sub-sub-cat. I also don't know whether we want to have categories for things like sound, or if that would go under "post-production". Finally, if we do this, would the companies that produced Star Trek proper have their own subcategory, or would they just stay in the parent cat? I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts on any of this. —Josiah Rowe 02:39, July 23, 2010 (UTC) :Do we actually need these sub-cats? I generally believe that we shouldn't add a sub-cat unless there are at least 5-10 pages that would fit into it. - 21:41, July 29, 2010 (UTC) Maintenance categories Specific category listings This isn't a formal request for a category and might not be depending on how this discussion goes. Basically I'm wondering why we don't have a category like Category:Memory Alpha images (USS Enterprise-D). It sure would be nice to have all the images of one particular ship in it's own category to browse over and see if an image already exists. As of now Category:Memory Alpha images (starships) contains 1,721 images making it a real pain to find a particular image with a particular ship. This could be expanded further to also include categories for specific people. At least those that appear in a lot of images like Category:Memory Alpha images (Quark). My naming might not be the best but I hope my intentions are explained properly. — Morder (talk) 21:24, December 10, 2009 (UTC) :This sounds like a nice idea in principle. Perhaps the name of the category could include whatever general category of images is involved, such as Category:Memory Alpha starship images (USS Enterprise).--31dot 21:47, December 10, 2009 (UTC) ::Definitely, yes! :) However, I think the prefix should stay "Memory Alpha images", for proper sorting of the categories themselves. -- Cid Highwind 22:08, December 10, 2009 (UTC) Well, the next question of this particular proposal would be where to draw the line. In particular we have tons of photos of say the Enterprise but maybe only 1 of ''Alice''. In addition I propose that any image that contains more than one ship must contain more than one category. Example: File:Ambassador starboard of Galaxy.jpg - however it becomes unweildly when there is a battle scene. In addition what about images that contain no named vessels - or only one like File:Andorian fleet.jpg should the category then be something like Category:Memory Alpha images (Andorian starship)? Lots to think about before this even get's started... — Morder (talk) 22:18, December 10, 2009 (UTC) ::There's something about this in the archived discussion over at Category talk:Memory Alpha images, already. In general, I think it would be a good idea to follow the basic idea of categorization, and try to become more specific with each level of subcategories. A subcategory of "(starships)" could be "(Federation starships)", a subcategory of that could be the aforementioned "(USS Enterprise-D)". An image showing two or more Federation starships would then be listed in the "Federation starships" category, and only in one of the individual starship categories if that starship is the major focus of the image - after all, keep in mind that image categories are mostly for editors, not for readers. Someone looking for an image showing two Fed starships probably wouldn't search the "Enterprise" category, and vice versa. If a category would only contain one, or very few, images, it is unnecessary IMO. -- Cid Highwind 23:16, December 10, 2009 (UTC) :::I'm for this idea, and as Cid said above, the categories should get more specific with each level. My suggestion would be to have a "(Galaxy Class)" category before a "(USS Enterprise-D)" category. As most of our images of the Galaxy class class are of the Enterprise, not counting Dominion War battles, a ship specific category may not be needed. - 00:05, December 11, 2009 (UTC) ---- *Category:Memory Alpha images (starships) **Category:Memory Alpha images (Federation starships) ***Category:Memory Alpha images (Galaxy class starships) **Category:Memory Alpha images (Klingon starships) ***Category:Memory Alpha images (Klingon Bird-of-Prey starships) Is everyone cool with the naming scheme and so forth in this tree? - 06:09, June 2, 2010 (UTC)